Raskholnikov wrote:Did you really intend aviation to be so powerful? I've had at least 3 games where I had a substantial advantage in ground territories. only for the opponent to load his 6 or 7 reinforcements on planes (which only had 2 or 3 to start with )and wipe out close to 15 of my ground units, thus totally reversing the game. If it's a question of having given favorable odds for airplane attacks, i'd tone it down, otherwise everyone will have no choice but to kill aviation asap at all costs at the expense of ground movements. Otherwise, the map if fun and has lots of tactical choices - but again, these can be easily negated by airplanes with favorable odds than can basically reach most targets on the map and easily destroy them.
Yes this is deliberate.
As you know, the battle started with lots of bombing so that is historically correct and true for the game.
Then once the planes were wiped out, the fighting moved to ground warfare and snipering.
Fortunately for this game it is not like Pearl Harbor where there are bonuses for planes.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Ugh. "Non-random manipulations?" Give me a break... I'm not sure if you really mean what it sounds like you mean but when you put it like that someone is bound to misunderstand it.
So before any of you get your panties in a twist, let me assure you that it is technically impossible (currently) to code any kind of "manipulation" into maps that would in any way affect the randomness of dice or spoils. Only random factor that mapmakers can manipulate is the drop, and trust me when I say CC maps go through a rigorous process to ensure that maps end up with the fairest possible drops.
Now if you meant that certain territories can be given a tactical advantage in a map, then yes, mapmakers can do this, but if this makes the map too likely to have unfair drops or other gameplay unfairness, then the foundry process demands that the gameplay is adjusted appropriately.
There is no mapmaker conspiracy to screw with your games. The map XML can in no way interfere with the dice or assault odds. I hope this clears matters before this turns into another "OMG CC IS CHEATING MY POINTZ I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!!!!1111" -thread.
natty_dread wrote:Ugh. "Non-random manipulations?" Give me a break... I'm not sure if you really mean what it sounds like you mean but when you put it like that someone is bound to misunderstand it.
So before any of you get your panties in a twist, let me assure you that it is technically impossible (currently) to code any kind of "manipulation" into maps that would in any way affect the randomness of dice or spoils. Only random factor that mapmakers can manipulate is the drop, and trust me when I say CC maps go through a rigorous process to ensure that maps end up with the fairest possible drops.
Now if you meant that certain territories can be given a tactical advantage in a map, then yes, mapmakers can do this, but if this makes the map too likely to have unfair drops or other gameplay unfairness, then the foundry process demands that the gameplay is adjusted appropriately.
There is no mapmaker conspiracy to screw with your games. The map XML can in no way interfere with the dice or assault odds. I hope this clears matters before this turns into another "OMG CC IS CHEATING MY POINTZ I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!!!!1111" -thread.
HOLY CRAP.. CC IS SCREWING US ALL.. I WANT MY MONEY BACK( even thought i havent spent any money on cc ) Screw you cc and screw the big fat server your riding on..
You get better odds when attacking multiple territories, and using bombardment than you will when using regular attacks. This is because you don't need to leave any armies in bombarded territories, and therefore have a larger force left to continue bombarding. It's a very simple concept, that has been known by anyone who cared enough to pay attention to what bombardment was, for years already.
Failure to comprehend game features is only a problem for the slow ones.
Timminz wrote:You get better odds when attacking multiple territories, and using bombardment than you will when using regular attacks. This is because you don't need to leave any armies in bombarded territories, and therefore have a larger force left to continue bombarding. It's a very simple concept, that has been known by anyone who cared enough to pay attention to what bombardment was, for years already.
Failure to comprehend game features is only a problem for the slow ones.
Well since the cat is out of the bag I will confess to using "sleeper bonuses" on two of my maps. There were bonuses consisting of random territories that when held provide a +3 bonus. You could only see which territories were involved if you debugged the xml file which you had to do each turn. There were also code to not displaying using BoB or other reporting programs, to mask their use. It will show the extra troops in the game log, but no one has since checked. I was able to win 90% of my games for a two month stretch when I was using it, it got a little labor intensive.
The code is still there if anyone wants to verify. You will need an xml debugging tool though.
Last edited by mibi on Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mibi wrote:Well since the cat is out of the bag I will confess to using "sleeper bonuses" on two of my maps. There were bonuses consisting of random territories that when held provide a +3 bonus. You could only see which territories were involved if you debugged the xml file which you had to do each turn. There were also code to not displaying using BoB or other reporting programs, to mask their use. It will show the extra troops in the game log, but no one has since checked. I was able to win 90% of my games for a two month stretch when I was using it, it got a little labor intensive.
The code is still if anyone wants to verify. You will need an xml debugging tool though.
Timminz wrote:You get better odds when attacking multiple territories, and using bombardment than you will when using regular attacks. This is because you don't need to leave any armies in bombarded territories, and therefore have a larger force left to continue bombarding. It's a very simple concept, that has been known by anyone who cared enough to pay attention to what bombardment was, for years already.
Failure to comprehend game features is only a problem for the slow ones.
did you just work that one out?
Did you read my whole post, or do you just enjoy following me around, and making yourself look stupid?
Timminz wrote:You get better odds when attacking multiple territories, and using bombardment than you will when using regular attacks. This is because you don't need to leave any armies in bombarded territories, and therefore have a larger force left to continue bombarding. It's a very simple concept, that has been known by anyone who cared enough to pay attention to what bombardment was, for years already.
Failure to comprehend game features is only a problem for the slow ones.
Not to mention the whole 3 for attack, 2 to defend that has ALWAYS been a part of this game, for a strategic reason.
Its funny how people always seem to complain about "non random dice" when they lose... and then go on to show that what they really need is a good class in statistics.
Timminz wrote:You get better odds when attacking multiple territories, and using bombardment than you will when using regular attacks. This is because you don't need to leave any armies in bombarded territories, and therefore have a larger force left to continue bombarding. It's a very simple concept, that has been known by anyone who cared enough to pay attention to what bombardment was, for years already.
Failure to comprehend game features is only a problem for the slow ones.
did you just work that one out?
Did you read my whole post, or do you just enjoy following me around, and making yourself look stupid?
yes, i read your whole post. didn't you get what i meant? i thought it was pretty easy to fathom.
following you about? first time i've ever quoted you first mate. i could bring up multiple times you've stalked me. could you, me? guess we have something in common on that stupid front you're talking about eh?
) Screw you cc and screw the big fat server your riding on..
